Message-ID: <707c4679-fde6-1714-ced0-dcf7ca8380a9@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:06:16 -0700
From:   Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
        Joseph Lo <josephl@...dia.com>
CC:     <thierry.reding@...il.com>, <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        <tglx@...utronix.de>, <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        <marc.zyngier@....com>, <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        <stefan@...er.ch>, <mark.rutland@....com>, <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
        <sboyd@...nel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <jckuo@...dia.com>,
        <talho@...dia.com>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
        <spatra@...dia.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 11/18] clk: tegra210: Add support for Tegra210 clocks


On 7/16/19 3:00 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 17.07.2019 0:35, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>> On 7/16/19 2:21 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> 17.07.2019 0:12, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>>>> On 7/16/19 1:47 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>> 16.07.2019 22:26, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>>>>>> On 7/16/19 11:43 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>>> 16.07.2019 21:30, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>>>>>>>> On 7/16/19 11:25 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 16.07.2019 21:19, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/19 9:50 AM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/19 8:00 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 16.07.2019 11:06, Peter De Schrijver пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:24:26PM +0800, Joseph Lo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, Will add to CPUFreq driver...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other thing that also need attention is that T124
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPUFreq
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicitly relies on DFLL driver to be probed first,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> icky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I add check for successful dfll clk register
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPUFreq driver probe and defer till dfll clk registers?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably you should use the "device links". See [1][2] for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.2.1/source/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c#L2383
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/device_link.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Return EPROBE_DEFER instead of EINVAL if device_link_add()
>>>>>>>>>>>> fails.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>> use of_find_device_by_node() to get the DFLL's device, see [3].
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/devfreq/tegra20-devfreq.c#n100
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Will go thru and add...
>>>>>>>>> Looks like I initially confused this case with getting orphaned
>>>>>>>>> clock.
>>>>>>>>> I'm now seeing that the DFLL driver registers the clock and then
>>>>>>>>> clk_get(dfll) should be returning EPROBE_DEFER until DFLL driver is
>>>>>>>>> probed, hence everything should be fine as-is and there is no real
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> for the 'device link'. Sorry for the confusion!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't follow the mail thread. Just regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFLL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you know it, the DFLL clock is one of the CPU clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sources and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated with DVFS control logic with the regulator. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPU to other clock sources once we switched to DFLL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPU has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been regulated by the DFLL HW with the DVFS table (CVB or OPP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the driver.). We shouldn't reparent it to other sources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknew
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freq/volt pair. That's not guaranteed to work. We allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> switching to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open-loop mode but different sources.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, then the CPUFreq driver will have to enforce DFLL freq to
>>>>>>>>>>>> PLLP's
>>>>>>>>>>>> rate before switching to PLLP in order to have a proper CPU
>>>>>>>>>>>> voltage.
>>>>>>>>>>> PLLP freq is safe to work for any CPU voltage. So no need to
>>>>>>>>>>> enforce
>>>>>>>>>>> DFLL freq to PLLP rate before changing CCLK_G source to PLLP
>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>> suspend
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, please ignore my above comment. During suspend, need to
>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>> CCLK_G source to PLLP when dfll is in closed loop mode first and
>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>> dfll need to be set to open loop.
>>>>>>>>> Okay.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I don't exactly understand why we need to switch to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PLLP in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPU
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver. Just keep it on CL-DVFS mode all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In SC7 entry, the dfll suspend function moves it the open-loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode. That's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. The sc7-entryfirmware will handle the rest of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the CPU power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In SC7 resume, the warmboot code will handle the sequence to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regulator and power up the CPU cluster. And leave it on PLL_P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resuming to the kernel, we re-init DFLL, restore the CPU clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy (CPU
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs on DFLL open-loop mode) and then moving to close-loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The DFLL is re-inited after switching CCLK to DFLL parent
>>>>>>>>>>>> during of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> early clocks-state restoring by CaR driver. Hence instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>> odd
>>>>>>>>>>>> hacks in the CaR driver, it is much nicer to have a proper
>>>>>>>>>>>> suspend-resume sequencing of the device drivers. In this case
>>>>>>>>>>>> CPUFreq
>>>>>>>>>>>> driver is the driver that enables DFLL and switches CPU to that
>>>>>>>>>>>> clock
>>>>>>>>>>>> source, which means that this driver is also should be
>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for
>>>>>>>>>>>> management of the DFLL's state during of suspend/resume
>>>>>>>>>>>> process. If
>>>>>>>>>>>> CPUFreq driver disables DFLL during suspend and re-enables it
>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>> resume, then looks like the CaR driver hacks around DFLL are not
>>>>>>>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DFLL part looks good to me. BTW, change the patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspend-resume support" seems more appropriate to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To clarify this, the sequences for DFLL use are as follows
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (assuming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> required DFLL hw configuration has been done)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Switch to DFLL:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0) Save current parent and frequency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Program DFLL to open loop mode
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Enable DFLL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Change cclk_g parent to DFLL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For OVR regulator:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Change PWM output pin from tristate to output
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Enable DFLL PWM output
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For I2C regulator:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Enable DFLL I2C output
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Program DFLL to closed loop mode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Switch away from DFLL:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0) Change cclk_g parent to PLLP so the CPU frequency is ok for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vdd_cpu voltage
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Program DFLL to open loop mode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see during switch away from DFLL (suspend), cclk_g parent is not
>>>>>>>>>> changed to PLLP before changing dfll to open loop mode.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Will add this ...
>>>>>>>>> The CPUFreq driver switches parent to PLLP during the probe,
>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>> should be done on suspend.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm also wondering if it's always safe to switch to PLLP in the
>>>>>>>>> probe.
>>>>>>>>> If CPU is running on a lower freq than PLLP, then some other more
>>>>>>>>> appropriate intermediate parent should be selected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CPU parents are PLL_X, PLL_P, and dfll. PLL_X always runs at higher
>>>>>>>> rate
>>>>>>>> so switching to PLL_P during CPUFreq probe prior to dfll clock
>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>> should be safe.
>>>>>>> AFAIK, PLLX could run at ~200MHz. There is also a divided output of
>>>>>>> PLLP
>>>>>>> which CCLKG supports, the PLLP_OUT4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably, realistically, CPU is always running off a fast PLLX during
>>>>>>> boot, but I'm wondering what may happen on KEXEC. I guess ideally
>>>>>>> CPUFreq driver should also have a 'shutdown' callback to teardown
>>>>>>> DFLL
>>>>>>> on a reboot, but likely that there are other clock-related
>>>>>>> problems as
>>>>>>> well that may break KEXEC and thus it is not very important at the
>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> During bootup CPUG sources from PLL_X. By PLL_P source above I meant
>>>>>> PLL_P_OUT4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As per clock policies, PLL_X is always used for high freq like >800Mhz
>>>>>> and for low frequency it will be sourced from PLLP.
>>>>> Alright, then please don't forget to pre-initialize PLLP_OUT4 rate to a
>>>>> reasonable value using tegra_clk_init_table or assigned-clocks.
>>>> PLLP_OUT4 rate update is not needed as it is safe to run at 408Mhz
>>>> because it is below fmax @ Vmin
>>> So even 204MHz CVB entries are having the same voltage as 408MHz,
>>> correct? It's not instantly obvious to me from the DFLL driver's code
>>> where the fmax @ Vmin is defined, I see that there is the min_millivolts
>>> and frequency entries starting from 204MHZ defined per-table.
>> Yes at Vmin CPU Fmax is ~800Mhz. So anything below that will work at
>> Vmin voltage and PLLP max is 408Mhz.
> Thank you for the clarification. It would be good to have that commented
> in the code as well.
OK, Will add...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists